Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation

Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution

higher professional education

"KEMEROVSK STATE UNIVERSITY"

« Department of Taxation, Entrepreneurship and Law "

Topic: "Zemsky counter-reforms of Alexander III"

Completed by: Valeeva V.A.

Checked by: Knyazeva Yu.A.

Kemerovo 2011

Counterreforms in Russia are a series of events carried out by Emperor Alexander III in 1889-1894. with the aim of strengthening the autocracy by revising the moderate-bourgeois reforms of the 60-70s.

The main place in the system of counterreforms was occupied by the "Regulations on the zemstvo chiefs" of 1889, which was supposed to return to the landowners the patrimonial power weakened as a result of the peasant reform. In the hands of the zemstvo chiefs, all the fullness of the judicial and administrative power in the district was concentrated.

Peasant self-government was completely subordinated to them. Justices of the peace in the counties were abolished and the jurisdiction of their cases passed to the zemstvo chiefs (partly to the volost courts).

The zemstvo chief also had broad rights in relation to the volost courts; he appointed volost judges from among the candidates presented to him by village assemblies, and could suspend the verdict of the volost court.

Taking advantage of these rights, the zemstvo chiefs committed arbitrariness in relation to the peasants.

One of the important acts in the cycle of counterreforms is the new provision on provincial and district zemstvo institutions of June 12, 1890. It was intended to undermine the democratic foundations of the zemstvo reform of 1864, i.e. all-estates and electivity, and, as S.Yu. Witte, to "endorse" the Zemstvo. It was only in this way that tsarism hoped to tame the Zemstvo or, at least, to suppress its "liberalism". Meanwhile, the governors from everywhere complained to the tsar about the "harmful direction of the zemstvo", which they saw in the fact that zemstvo institutions "initiate and subject matters to discussion that are not within their competence," that is, mainly protect Russians from abuse of power by the tsarist administration. On a similar complaint from the Vyatka governor in 1886, Alexander III noted: "Almost everywhere the same." The tsar was especially irritated by the facts of "systematic bickering" of zemstvo institutions "with almost all government institutions: with the governor, with the police, with judicial investigators and the Ministry of Justice, with the clergy, with the inspection of public schools and with the educational district" he learned from the governor's reports. This is how Novgorod Governor A.N. Mosolov. Alexander III threateningly asked on the margins of his report: "What measures have been taken by the government against this outrage?"

Under the new regulation, the election of peasant representatives to the zemstvo was abolished. From now on, the peasants could elect only candidates, and from them the administration of the province (as a rule, the same zemstvo chiefs) appointed vowels, i.e. zemstvo deputies. Further, the non-estate electoral curia of landowners was liquidated, and a curia of nobles was established in its place. As a result, by 1903 the proportion of noblemen in / 321 / provincial councils of the zemstvo reached 94.1%, in county councils - 71.9%. Finally, the functions of the zemstvo were even more limited. If earlier the governor could cancel the zemstvo decrees only because of their "illegality", now also because of their "inexpediency", from his, the governor's point of view.

All these measures tied the hands of local government so that it now seemed more decorative than business. However, over time it became clear that the irreversible process of bourgeoisisation of the nobility frustrated the plans of tsarism to reactionize the zemstvo by means of its nobility. Among the Zemstvo nobles, contrary to the hopes of the reactionaries, liberals, rather than guardians, also prevailed. One can agree with P.A. Zayonchkovsky that "the Zemstvo counter-reform, despite the strengthening of government tutelage and the increase in the number of the nobility, did not change the oppositional essence of the Zemstvo bodies," although it made their activities very difficult. This fact is indicative: in just one year, from November 1891 to November 1892, the provincial presences on zemstvo affairs canceled 116 decisions of provincial and district zemstvo assemblies in 11 provinces.

Following the zemstvo, the city counter-reform was carried out in the same spirit. On June 11, 1892, Alexander III approved a new city regulation instead of the city reform of 1870, which he regarded as "absurdity." Now not only workers were deprived of voting rights, as in 1870, but in general all townspeople without immovable property: tenants, clerks, small merchants. The political competence of the middle bourgeoisie has sharply diminished. For example, in Kiev, out of 7 thousand homeowners, 5 thousand were deprived of voting rights. All in all, in 132 cities with a population of 9.5 million people, only 100 thousand citizens (1.05%) retained their electoral rights under the law of 1892. From now on, the city administration was dominated not by the commercial and industrial circles, as before, but by the owners of real estate, i.e. first of all, large homeowners, which were mostly all the same nobles and officials.

Nevertheless, the city administration, like the zemstvo administration, was placed under even stricter control of the administration than before. If the city regulation of 1870 entrusted the governor with the supervision of "the correctness and legality of the actions" of city bodies, then according to the law of 1892 the governor could direct "these actions according to the state benefit." Minister of Internal Affairs I.N. Durnovo stated with satisfaction that the new city position had been coordinated "with the zemstvo in its new system."

However, the city counter-reform was not entirely successful for tsarism. “By depriving representatives of the petty bourgeoisie (local merchants, clerks) from the voting rights, the law of 1892 strengthened in / 322 / city councils the role of owners of real estate, as well as representatives of institutions that owned real estate in cities,” concluded P.A. Zayonchkovsky. - Thus, the percentage of people with secondary and higher education has increased in city councils, and therefore in councils. This, naturally, also increased the percentage of opposition elements, i.e. representatives of the liberal intelligentsia ”.

Section VI. History of elections in Russia

Zemskaya "counter-reform" or "correction of reforms" (based on election campaigns in the Moscow province)

annotation

The article is devoted to the zemstvo election campaigns that took place in the Moskovsk province in the 80s - the first half of the 90s. XIX century. On the basis of archival materials, the author examines the attempts of voters to challenge the election results, the activities of the governor and the provincial presence on zemstvo and city affairs to oversee the application of electoral law. It is concluded that the changes associated with the reform of 1890 combined elements of both "counterreform" and "reform correction".

Key words: zemstvo elections, administrative supervision, provincial presence in zemstvo and city affairs, "counter-reforms", "correction of reforms".

Galkin Pavel Vladimirovich

Doctor of Historical Sciences, Head of the Department

State Social and Humanitarian University (Kolomna, Russia)

The problems of administrative reforms carried out in the second half of the XIX century. and those directly affecting the situation of zemstvo institutions are interpreted ambiguously in the works of historians, political scientists and lawyers. One of the central questions is to what extent the reform of 1890 contributed to a radical change in the status and competence of zemstvos.

In pre-revolutionary historiography, most authors noted the strengthening of state principles in the zemstvo and criticized legislative innovations in terms of reducing the independence of public institutions.

and strengthening administrative oversight. The well-known historian of the zemstvo B. B. Veselovsky noted that the main innovation of the reform of 1890 was "the establishment of the estates of electoral groups and the provision of a significant preponderance of the noble vowels", but at the same time he concluded that the reform "did not produce any significant changes ", and" the zemstvo power remained in the same hands. "

In Soviet historical science, the term “counter-reform” is firmly established in relation to the "Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions" of 1890, and when assessing the reasons that prompted

government to carry out a "counter-reform", L. G. Zakharova, in addition to general political motives, pointed to the constitutional requirements of the "zemstvo-liberal opposition" and the evolution of the social composition of the assembly, including the struggle of the "commercial and industrial and new landowning bourgeoisie." At the same time, the "zemstvo counter-reform", according to P. A. Zayonchkovsky, did not bring the expected results to the government, since "despite the strengthening of government guardianship and a certain increase in the number of the nobility, it did not change the oppositional essence of the zemstvo bodies."

Modern authors consider it inappropriate to assess the transformations of Alexander III as "counter-reforms" and suggest the term "correction of reforms." For the first time, such a formulation of the question was made in the collective monograph "Administrative reforms in Russia: history and modernity", where the Zemsky reform of 1890 is viewed as an aspiration "to overcome the opposition of elected and crown institutions."

A consistent consideration of the problem of terminology was undertaken in the research of N.I.Biyushkina. In them, in particular, the author notes that in dictionaries "counter" (from Latin "contra") is characterized as the first part of compound words, meaning an opposite or counter process, opposition to what is expressed in the second part of the word. In this regard, N.I.Biyushkina considers it more correct to use the term "correction of reforms", arguing that "the policy of counterreforms objectively looks like a course of correction (author's italics - PG) of the complex and contradictory process of transformations of Alexander II ...". At the same time, she does not refuse to use the term "counter-reforms", suggesting that they be understood as "a system of internal political measures taken by the emperor aimed at restoring and subsequent observance of

the regime of law and order, to bring the course of reforms of Alexander II in line with the changed by the beginning of the 80s. XIX century. socio-economic and political-legal relations ”.

Thus, in modern studies devoted to the transformations of Alexander III, there has been a rejection of the use of the concept of "counter-reform" in favor of the term "correction of reforms." This article is an attempt to consider the zemstvo election campaigns carried out in the Moscow province in the 80s - the first half of the 90s. XIX century, in order to identify the causes and consequences of the reform of 1890 and to determine how legitimate the use of one or another approach in assessing these events.

According to the "Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions, the highest approved on January 1, 1864" the composition of the zemstvo vowels was first formed at the county level. Voters were divided into three curiae: county landowners, urban voters, and rural societies elected.

In the Moscow province, for participation in the elections from the first curia, a property qualification was established in the amount of 200 acres of land or 15 thousand rubles. at the cost of real estate, or 6 thousand rubles. annual turnover of industrial production. Equally, attorneys from churches, companies and societies meeting these requirements could participate in elections. Citizens or representatives of institutions who possessed property exceeding 1/20 of the property qualification participated in special preliminary congresses at the choice of commissioners, the number of which was established in accordance with the number of full qualifications. In the electoral congress of landowners could participate personally or through authorized peasants who owned the required amount of land outside the peasant allotment.

Merchants, owners of commercial and industrial establishments with an annual income of over 6 thousand rubles, as well as owners of urban real estate, the cost of which depended on the number of residents, took part in the electoral congresses of county cities. So, in cities with more than 10 thousand inhabitants (in the Moscow province these are the cities of Kolomna and the city of Serpukhov), it was required to own real estate worth more than 3 thousand rubles; in cities with 2 to 10 thousand inhabitants - not less than 1000 rubles, and in all other urban settlements - not less than 500 rubles. Nobles and clergy, attorneys from churches, societies, companies that own property of an appropriate size could run for this curia.

According to the third curia, which did not provide for a property qualification, the elections were multi-stage: first, the village gathering elected representatives to the volost gathering, at which the electors were elected, and then at the county congresses, the electors elected vowels to the district zemstvo assembly. According to the law, from each rural society there had to be at least one representative among the electors. The third curia also granted the right to run for members of the electoral congress of landowners and the Orthodox clergy, and the latter were endowed with this right even if they did not have a property qualification that allowed them to run for the first curia. This was done by the legislator in order to raise the cultural and educational level of those elected from the third curia.

The governor and vice-governors, members of provincial boards, prosecutors and police ranks could not be elected as vowels. Persons convicted and under investigation or police supervision were deprived of their voting rights.

Voting rights were not granted to foreigners and Russian citizens under the age of 25. Women who owned real estate could authorize

to participate in the elections of their fathers, husbands, sons, sons-in-law and siblings who did not have the necessary property qualification. Unseparated sons could participate in elections instead of fathers as commissioners. At the same time, no one could have more than two votes at the electoral congress: one vote by personal right and one by proxy or authorization.

The vowels were elected for three years in terms appointed by the Minister of the Interior. At the electoral congress of landowners, the county leader of the nobility presided, at the congress of the second curia - the mayor, and at village congresses the chairman was appointed from among the electors and approved by the world mediator.

The preparatory work for organizing the elections was entrusted to the zemstvo councils, which were supposed to draw up preliminary voter lists for the first two curiae four months in advance and update them one month before the elections. After that, the lists were published in the official part of the "Moscow Provincial Gazette".

One of the main sources for the analysis of electoral technologies in the mid-1880s. are the published "Journals of the district zemstvo assemblies of the Moscow province", which listed all the complaints and applications submitted by voters, as well as the governor's relations sent to the zemstvo assemblies. For the election campaigns held at the turn of 1880-1890, the Central Historical Archives of Moscow preserved office documentation, which is the correspondence of the zemstvo administrations with the governor and the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The files contain acts and minutes of electoral congresses, balloting lists, powers of attorney of authorized persons, reports of police officers on the reliability of persons elected to the public, as well as decisions of the Senate on complaints from individuals.

During the election campaign of 1883, the main contradictions arose due to the use of the so-called blank powers of attorney, in which the surname of the proxy was entered immediately before the elections, which made it possible to influence the results of the zemstvo elections. As a consequence, this led to proceedings in 5 of the 13 counties of the Moscow province. Moreover, in each case, its own nuances appeared. Thus, in the Podolsk district, the power of attorney presented by the voter did not meet the requirements, since it was signed by witnesses after it was witnessed by the police. In Kolomna district, controversy caused the rights of three voters at once. The power of attorney of one of them was certified by the magistrate, another by a notary, and the third by the assistant to the city bailiff, but all the documents did not contain the signatures of witnesses. However, at the electoral congress, when checking the rights of proxies, it was decided that all powers of attorney were certified in accordance with the requirements of the law, therefore, the persons who received them were allowed to participate in the voting.

In the Bronnitsky district, a case was recorded of participation in the elections of a person who did not have his own qualification or power of attorney. On this fact, one of the congress participants, Colonel N. I. Ilyin, filed a complaint with the Moscow governor V. S. Perfiliev, in which he said the following: "... no one knew that I. Mochalov appeared in his father's place," but the ballot list was signed by Ivan , "Although he obviously tried to derive the letter" I "so that it has similarities with the letter" I "and" P " ", And with such" tricks "it can" always mislead both the chairman and other members of the congress ... "When considering the complaint in the zemstvo assembly, it was taken into account that P. S. Mochalov refused the title of vowel, therefore, a majority of votes decided to recognize the elections as correct.

The elections of 1883 in the Klinsky district had a scandalous connotation, where a complaint to the governor was filed not by voters, but by the chairman of the zemstvo council A.A.Olenin. It described the gross violations of the law in the execution of four powers of attorney. So, V.V.Sokolov, who participated in the congress, presented a power of attorney, in which his name was entered by him with his own hand. Another power of attorney was issued to I. N. Kashaev, who did not have his own qualification. Another voter, I.O. Nazimov, presented a letter from his father, signed by witnesses shortly before the elections and not witnessed by anyone. And finally, the voter VS Sakharov presented the power of attorney without specifying to whom it was issued. Governor V.S.Perfiliev forwarded the complaint of the chairman of the zemstvo council to the zemstvo assembly, indicating that he, in turn, agreed with the arguments given in it.

However, the vowels acknowledged that all four documents were legally binding. By the power of attorney of V.V. Sokolov, in particular, it was found out that the name was inscribed by the hand of the principal at the beginning of the document, and the certification was carried out at the police department. The power of attorney to IN Kashaev was issued by the board of the Vysokovskaya manufactory, the signature was certified by a notary, and the authorized person was a shareholder of this manufactory in the amount of at least 15 thousand rubles, which met the requirements for property qualification. Nazimov's power of attorney, certified by two witnesses and the leader of the nobility, was also recognized as correct. Sakharov's power of attorney turned out to be even easier: since the principal and

a faithful person was “included in the list of major landowners and known to all members of the congregation as locals and that there is no doubt of trust ”, the power of attorney was recognized as valid.

The Moscow governor agreed only with the arguments of the Zemstvos regarding the power of attorney of V.V. Sokolov, and on other points he protested the resolution of the meeting. After that, the vowels again examined the circumstances that gave rise to the governor's objections. Voter I. N. Kashayev, in confirmation of the property qualification, was presented with a certificate issued by the board of the Vysokovskaya manufactory stating that his share was 25 thousand rubles, on the basis of which the vowels recognized the power of attorney received by him as correct. In support of V.S.Sakharov's power of attorney, a letter from the confidant, allegedly presented at the electoral congress, was considered. And with regard to Nazimov's power of attorney, the zemstvo people, without going into any legal subtleties, made a decision by simple vote: by 18 votes to 11, they recognized the participation of the unseparated son as legitimate on the basis of a written statement from his father.

Governor V.S.Perfiliev suspended this resolution of the Zemsky Assembly and submitted materials for the decision to the Senate. His report also reported disagreement with the decisions of the Zemstvo Assembly, held on other issues with the "illegal composition of vowels." The case was examined in the Senate on December 14, 1883. In relation to I. N. Kashaev, it was ordered to exclude him from the number of vowels, since, without his own full qualification, he “could not be authorized by the Partnership of the Vysokovskaya Manufactory to participate in the elections as a representative of the qualification, belonging to her, even if he was a shareholder of the manufactory. " At the same time, the election of Nazimov and Sakharov was recognized as legal due to the fact that the first of them

participated in the congress as an inseparable son, for which special authorizations were not required, and the second, in addition to the vote presented to him by proxy, had his own ball according to his personal property qualification.

In the Moscow district, the situation with the verification of powers of attorney was further complicated by the problem of the struggle between the nobility and the "brick makers" - the owners of brick factories headed by M. D. Pfeifer. This factional struggle was a direct consequence of the reduction in the proportion of the nobility in the electorate1. Therefore, the "brick makers", using manipulations with ballots, tried to ensure that the nobles finally lost interest in the elections, considering it beneath their dignity to undergo repeated re-ballot.

In 1883, after the completion of the elections for the first curia, the voters VL Kirkhhoff, NF Richter and AF Rzhevsky filed complaints about “irregularities” that were made when drawing up powers of attorney at once by 6 “brick-makers” voters. The issue was discussed at a meeting of the zemstvo assembly, where by a majority of votes (15 to 12) the elections were recognized as correct. However, the governor V.S.Perfiliev did not agree with the resolution of the zemstvo assembly and returned all the materials for re-discussion. At the next meeting of the zemstvo assembly, part of the zemstvo people spoke out in favor of disagreeing with the protest of the head of the province, others, on the contrary, spoke out

1 If in 1865 the nobles accounted for 91% of the total number of large landowners of the first curia, then in subsequent years this figure decreased rapidly, amounting to 51% in 1868, 49% in 1871, and 44% in 1874. %, in 1877 - 39%, and, finally, in 1880 - only 34% (calculated according to: Report of the Moscow district zemstvo council to the Moscow district zemstvo assembly in 1880 No. 1. - p. 7).

in favor of holding repeat elections. As a result, by 16 votes to 8, the zemstvo decided to agree with the opinion of the governor and to petition for the appointment of a new congress for the first curia.

The elections took place in November, and no complaints were filed for any "irregularities". As a result of the new elections, the brick-makers managed to strengthen their positions: if after the first round there were 4 merchants and 3 honorary citizens (out of 12 seats) among the vowels, then after the second round - 8 and 4, respectively (out of 15 seats). Thus, the nobles remained in the zemstvo assembly in the minority, and the leader of the "brick-built" collegiate secretary M. D. Pfeifer was elected not only as a vowel, but also as chairman of the zemstvo council.

In general, the election campaign of 1883 showed that in most cases, applications and complaints filed against persons who participated in elections by proxy were not so much an element of the struggle for the legality of electoral procedures as a means of achieving certain goals by representatives of a particular group of voters.

The election campaign of 1886 on the scale of the province passed without major violations, with the exception of the Moscow district, where the brick-makers, headed by MD Pfeifer, who took dominant positions in the zemstvo council, tried to ensure their interests as much as possible. The nature of the "irregularities" committed in the elections for the first curia is illustrated by the complaint of NF Richter and NA Kablukov. The first complaint they voiced was that the leader of the nobility, presiding at the congress, received lists from the zemstvo council the day before the elections and therefore could not ensure the distribution of summons to voters. “Failure to comply with this law,” the applicants argued, “made it impossible for many landowners, dacha owners and representatives of church property not living in

in the city, to take part in the congress, which clearly violated their rights. " At the same time, the complainants suggested that "the representatives of factories and trading establishments were notified in some special way." The second part of the complaint was devoted to the participation in the congress of large landowners of persons on the basis of powers of attorney who did not meet the requirements of the law. Further, it was reported that after the elections, NF Richter could not familiarize himself with the powers of attorney at the zemstvo council, because one day they ended up in the safe of the absent secretary of the council, and the next day with the absent member of the council. Since the law had only three days to file a complaint, Richter had to formulate the violations only "in general terms." He argued that some voters did not know from whom they had powers of attorney, and not all powers of attorney were submitted for attestation by the believers themselves, and sometimes they bore "handwritten testimony", but the name of the person whose signature was verified was not mentioned.

The accusations presented were largely directed against the chairman and members of the zemstvo council as the main organizers of the electoral process. The facts presented by the applicants testified to the desire of the council, headed by M.D. Pfeifer, to increase the number of votes belonging to his supporters. On the one hand, this was achieved by a special procedure for notifying voters about the date of the meeting and the complete usurpation of this process to the detriment of the actions of the leader of the nobility, presiding at the congress of the first curia, and on the other, a variety of techniques were used to manipulate powers of attorney. However, in the explanatory note that the governor demanded from the district council, most of the accusations were skillfully refuted. Ensuring voter turnout according to the version

The council was carried out in the best possible way: up to 600 announcements were made (that is, almost according to the number of voters) and with couriers they were sent to the police officers, to all volost boards, monasteries and all deans of the district. For all the points of the complaint, dedicated to powers of attorney, the explanations of the council say that they were of a single nature, and the attestation of them by the member of the council and the magistrate was explained by the fact that they are officials, and this does not contradict the law.

In general, the explanations of the council were far from convincing on all points, but at a meeting of the zemstvo assembly, where the "brick-makers" were actively opposed only by the vowel from the department K. V. Babanovsky and I. I. Shakhovskoy, who supported him, the question of the correctness of the actions of the electoral congress was decided in the affirmative by a majority (26 to 3) votes. Thus, the active position of individual voters and vowels actually ran into a powerful opposing force of representatives of non-noble classes. And if in previous years the main struggle unfolded at electoral congresses, then after the election of M.D. failure, since the "brick-makers", using organizational resources, became invulnerable in the face of governor's supervision.

Taking into account the circumstances, in the same 1886 the leader of the nobility of the Moscow district, Prince P.N. Trubetskoy, turned to the Minister of Internal Affairs, D.A. , highlighting in it the owners of factories, plants and other non-land property. These proposals received support in the provincial zemstvo assembly and found

response on the pages of "Vestnik Evropy" and "Nedelya", but real changes in the position of the nobility of industrially developed counties will take place only after the publication of the new "Regulations on Zemstvo Institutions" 1.

However, NF Richter did not accept the defeat of the nobility and took unprecedented steps to defend his position. At a meeting of the provincial zemstvo assembly in December 1886, when checking the rights of provincial vowels, he again announced the illegality of the elections in the Moscow district, pointing out that the reason for the violations was the wrong actions of the district government in compiling the voter lists. The provincial councilors, after hearing the submitted statement, acknowledged that the assembly did not have the appropriate competence to review the election results in the counties, and at the same time decided to petition the government to extend the rights to review the work of electoral congresses to the provincial zemstvo assemblies.

In January 1889, on the eve of the next election campaign, N.F. Richter

1 It is noteworthy that during the next election campaign, the county leader of the nobility, Prince P.N. Trubetskoy, again tried to resolve the issue of creating a separate curia for the owners of commercial and industrial establishments. To this end, he tried to enlist, first of all, the support of the Moscow Governor-General Prince VA Dolgoruky: “... every year the number of factories, factories, taverns and other real estate is increasing,” the leader of the nobility noted in a letter to the general -the governor. - The amount of land cannot be added, and therefore it is completely absurd that at the congress of landowners not a single landowner is elected, but fall into the vowels of brick-makers, innkeepers and industrialists of all kinds ... "(CIAM. - F. 17. - Op.71 .-- D. 92 .-- L. 16).

again decided to propose this issue to the provincial zemstvo assembly, which this time decided to transfer it for "investigation" to the provincial council. To clarify all the circumstances of the case, the members of the provincial government decided to send two representatives to the Moscow district government.

Further, the conflict began to develop along an increasing line: the members of the county government, guided by the norms of the law, decided that persons sent by the provincial government "were not allowed to be investigated." The members of the Moscow district council reported the incident to the public councilor of the district assembly. The report emphasized that "the direction of actions of the Moscow provincial zemstvo assembly seriously threatens the independence of the district zemstvo institutions of the Moscow province", and therefore the uyezd government proposed to appeal to the higher administrative authorities "in order to determine the boundaries for the competence of the provincial zemstvo assembly and to protect the interests of uyezd zemstvo assemblies." The county assembly by a majority vote (20 to 1) decided to support the position of the county government and authorize it to file a complaint with the Senate.

The election campaign of 1889, which began against the background of such a scandalous clarification of relations between the district and provincial structures, continued in the same vein. Already in April, NF Richter filed a complaint with the county government about the incorrect compilation of the lists. The main complaint was that the owners of houses, brick factories and other industrial establishments were included in the electoral lists for capitalization of 7% profitability, although the law clearly indicated that voting rights were granted either in terms of property value or annual production turnover. In total, according to Richter's complaint, up to 150 people should have been excluded from the lists, the value of whose property was calculated by the council.

incorrectly and in fact did not correspond to the property qualification. In response to these claims, members of the county government stated that such methods of calculation had been used since 1870, and they had not met any protests from the voters and the governor. On the basis of which, the complaint to NF Richter was denied. However, the latter decided to be persistent and filed a complaint with the provincial government, where a resolution was adopted: to recognize the lists of the district government as compiled in violation of the law. Members of the county government tried to apply the same approaches that were used in the incident with Richter's previous complaint, pointing out that the decision of the provincial government went beyond its competence, and in order to resolve the issue in the right way, they filed a petition to convene an emergency zemstvo meeting. The archival materials on this occasion preserved a note by the district marshal of the nobility P.N. Trubetskoy, addressed to the Moscow Governor-General Prince V.A. Dolgoruky. It expressed doubts about the advisability of permitting an emergency meeting of county vowels, since "the law does not allow the re-compilation of voter lists and the very re-compilation of them will entail confusion, not to mention the possibility of removing the council from office." Apparently, these arguments were taken into account in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, since permission to convene an emergency meeting was not provided, but the explanation of the reasons for the refusal was given differently: it indicated that the decision of the provincial zemstvo assembly could not be subject to discussion at the county level. Having received a refusal, the county government made a petition to the Minister of Internal Affairs IN Durnovo for "proper instructions."

A few days later, the Moscow governor, Prince V.M. Golitsyn, turned to

to the Minister of the Interior in order to present his vision of the problem. First of all, he admitted that the demand made by the provincial zemstvo council seemed inconsistent with the "Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions." To find a compromise and draw up new electoral lists, the governor proposed creating a special commission chaired by the marshal of the nobility and including members of both county and provincial zemstvo councils in its composition. And for the final resolution of the problem, the governor proposed to support the initiative of the district marshal of the nobility P.N. or another way to the congress from the landowners, which mainly explains the inaccuracies in the compilation of voter lists for the Moscow district. "

In a confidential response, the Minister of Internal Affairs I.N.Durnovo agreed with the statement of the Moscow governor that the requirements of the provincial zemstvo council to be included in the lists of owners of real estate on the basis of their own testimony, confirmed by witnesses, disagreed with the current legislation. The minister recognized the prospects of creating a separate curia for the owners of commercial and industrial establishments only after the adoption of the relevant rules, "... for which there is hardly sufficient reason, especially in view of the undertaken general revision of the rules relating to the zemstvo institutions."

In the official response received by the zemstvo councils from the Ministry of Internal Affairs, it was reported that the

The elimination of electoral lists must be carried out “only in the sense that it removes the reason for the assumption of a composite electoral qualification for the same persons ...”. The Moscow district government, considering that “there were no composite qualifications” in the voter lists, decided, without correcting them, to send them to the governor for final approval. There were no new complaints about this either from the voters or from the governor, so at the end of November elections were still held for the first curia.

However, on election day, NF Richter presented a dissenting opinion, in which he indicated that he considered the conduct of elections on an uncorrected electoral list as disagreeing with the law. But when P.N. Trubetskoy, who presided over the congress, proposed to put the application to a vote, Richter refused, apparently wishing to keep the opportunity to submit new protests. As a result, the complainant himself did not put forward his candidacy for the vote, and his main opponent, the chairman of the zemstvo council M.D. Pfeifer, won the most ballots (81 out of 97). As a result of the vowel elections from the first curia, a smaller number of "brick-makers" passed, and NF Richter was elected to the zemstvo assembly from the peasant curia. Obviously, Richter's complaints played an important role in this insignificant decrease in the number of “brick-makers” in the zemstvo assembly, since even despite the lack of direct satisfaction of them, they influenced the supporters of M. D. Pfeiffer, forcing them to reduce their ambitions and stop unrestrained “squeezing »The nobility from the zemstvo.

In other districts of the Moscow province, not a single complaint was recorded during the elections of 1889, with the exception of the congress of the second curia in the city of Dmitrov. There were violations in the execution of powers of attorney, and, in addition, there was a division of the elected vowels

into two parts (4 vowels were chosen from Dmitrov and 6 vowels - from Sergiev Po-sad). As a result of such a ballot from Sergiev Posad, a candidate who received 21 "white balls" was enrolled in the vowels, and from the city of Dmitrov, the voter who received 22 votes was among the candidates for the vowels, which, of course, was contrary to the law. The Moscow governor, Prince V. M. Golitsyn, sent all the materials for consideration by the district zemstvo assembly, which agreed with the assessment of these violations and the need to hold re-elections for the second curia. The new elections were held in a calm atmosphere and no protests were received at them.

Summing up the overall results of the election campaigns in the Moscow province of 1883-1889, we note that, in general, the elections were held in compliance with the current legislation, and the revealed facts of violations were observed at about one of ten election congresses.

A key role in the electoral process was played by county zemstvo boards, which compiled voter lists and corresponded with the governor on the timing and location of elections. Another important link was the county zemstvo assemblies, because it was they who were supposed to check the legality of the rights of the vowels. The provincial government stood apart in this system, which participated in the consideration of repeated complaints about the compilation of electoral lists. On the part of the state authorities, the functions of overseeing the conduct of elections were entrusted to the governors, the Minister of Internal Affairs exercised permissive powers, and the Senate was in charge of the interpretation of the law and the final resolution of complaints. As can be seen from the episodes reviewed, all of the above subjects of the electoral process had no direct interest in revising the election results, and therefore

sought to minimize proceedings related to violations of the law. The exception was the election campaigns, during which the struggle of certain groups of voters was accompanied either by egregious facts of violations of the law, or they exerted active pressure on the zemstvo assembly or the governor through the filing of numerous complaints, protests and dissenting opinions. Another criterion for canceling elections was proven situations of illegal influence on the outcome of the vote (as a rule, when elected to the vowel with a margin of one or two votes).

The strength of the entire electoral system in the Moscow province was tested by the regular complaints of NF Richter, who, showing enviable persistence, managed to involve all structures in their investigation. At the same time, the provincial government and the provincial zemstvo assembly demonstrated their unpreparedness for the role of an arbitrator due to their interest in the results of the proceedings and even their inclination to lobby for a certain decision. The Governor and the Minister of Internal Affairs took a more balanced position, demonstrating their desire to resolve the problem as soon as possible within the framework of the current legislation. However, the paradox was that the situation in the Moscow district could only be fundamentally resolved by reforming electoral norms. The rapid development of trade and industry in the absence of a second (urban) curia led to an active influence of the "brick-makers" on the election results. In this regard, NF Richter's complaints were more likely a gesture of despair, and, of course, they could not have a noticeable effect on the outcome of election campaigns. But at the same time, attracting attention from representatives of state authorities, from the governor and the governor-general to the minister of the interior,

became, in fact, a legal opportunity to raise a problem. And, apparently, this was not least taken into account when developing the concept of the reform of 1890.

For other districts of the Moscow province, the most relevant in the forthcoming reform of the zemstvo legislation was still not a change in the approach to granting electoral rights and not the distribution of voters by curia, but the creation of a new oversight body by analogy with the provincial presence for city affairs. Because only a structure that was not bound by the zemstvo corporate interests (when the legitimacy of their rights was verified by the vowels by a collective decision) could provide a more or less high-quality provision of the functions of administrative supervision. Such a body appeared as a result of the adoption of a new zemstvo regulation, first in the form of a presence on zemstvo affairs, and then a provincial presence in zemstvo and city affairs, which combined supervision of both branches of local self-government.

Other notable innovations of the "Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions" in 1890 were changes in the electoral system, which turned out to be aimed at satisfying the narrow class interests of the nobility. The previous division according to the first two curiae - into owners of property in rural areas and in cities - was replaced, in accordance with the class approach, with curiae of nobles and non-nobles who own real estate. The right to participate in the choice of vowels for the first two curia was enjoyed by persons who were Russian citizens, as well as charitable and educational institutions, commercial and industrial societies, partnerships and companies, provided that they owned property within the county for one year. The requirements of the law on the one-year period of property ownership were introduced in order to protect the zemstvo from persons who do not have “sufficiently strong

connection with the area and acquaintance with its interests. " This condition was not observed for the indigenous inhabitants of the county. The property qualification in the Moscow province has remained the same. The changes affected only defective voters, who now included the owners of property exceeding 1/10 of the qualification (according to the previous law, it was 1/20).

To control the legality of the zemstvo elections and the decisions of the zemstvo assemblies, a new body was established - the provincial presence for zemstvo and city affairs. The presence included: the governor (chairman of the presence), the vice-governor, the provincial leader of the nobility, the governor of the Treasury chamber, the prosecutor of the District Court, the chairman of the provincial zemstvo council and one of the provincial zemstvo councilors, as well as the mayor of the provincial city and an indispensable member of the presence from the Ministry internal affairs, responsible for keeping records of the presence. During the election campaign, the main task of the presence was to consider complaints about the conduct of elections, and if serious violations of the law were detected, a decision could be made to cancel them and call new elections. If the election of individual vowels was recognized as incorrect, then a resolution was adopted to replace them with candidates for vowels.

All members of the provincial presence on zemstvo and city affairs were deprived of the right to participate in zemstvo elections. Along with them, clergymen, policemen and employees of the prosecutor's office could not participate in the elections. Just as in the previous law, persons convicted and under investigation or police supervision were deprived of their voting rights.

Electoral rights in the peasant curia remained without significant changes, they extended to householders, and the election of persons from other co-workers

Words were not allowed now. Elections were held first at the village, and then at the volost gatherings. At the same time, one candidate from the parish was elected.

The first election campaign, held under the new Regulation, fell on 1891, and its main difference was the various requests of the county zemstvo councils regarding the application of certain provisions of the law on the second curia. For example, the Serpukhov government appealed to the provincial presence for zemstvo and city affairs with the question of including the local city society in the electoral lists, which owned 645 dessiatines of land. In the response of the presence, it was ordered to exclude the city society from the voter list, because in accordance with Art. 57 of the new zemstvo Regulations, the mayor was the representative of the district center in the zemstvo assembly. The Ruza government submitted to the presence a proposal to divide the second curia into two congresses - landowners and owners of other types of property. As arguments, it was pointed out that “the combination ... in one electoral congress would not sufficiently equalize the rights of the owners of one and the other type of property and could have as its consequence an advantage regarding the election for the owners of one type of property to the detriment of the owners of the proper equality in the election of delegates would not have been achieved ”. By the decision of the presence, this proposal was rejected, with which the Minister of the Interior, IN Durnovo, also agreed.

When drawing up electoral lists in the Moscow district, the governor protested against the inclusion in them of the Moscow City Administration for the ownership of the territory occupied by urban slaughterhouses, the Imperial Racing Society and the Society of Racing Hunters who own the lands

in the county, as well as several persons of the Jewish faith. The presence agreed with all of the governor's arguments, considering that the above societies did not fit the list established by law and recalling that the Jews were deprived of voting rights under the 1890 “Regulations”. As a result, they were all excluded from the voter list. This episode shows that, under the new law, administrative oversight of electoral procedures has become more consistent and made it possible to suppress violations of the law without complaints and statements from voters.

The 1894 campaign was accompanied by numerous violations of the electoral legislation, which were revealed already at the stage of compiling the voter lists. In the process of administrative supervision, the governor identified the relevant facts and sent materials on them to the provincial presence on zemstvo and city affairs, whose members consistently excluded from the lists those voters who, to one degree or another, did not meet the requirements of the law. For example, in two cities - Zvenigorod and Sergiev Posad - residents who did not have a year of ownership of property were deleted from the lists; and in the Bogorodsky district the same fate befell the representatives of the Kostroma nobility, who owned the necessary amount of land, but their participation in the elections as an estate society, in the opinion of the members of the presence, was not provided for by law.

Following the election itself, the presence received three complaints from voters and six protests from the governor. At the same time, all complaints were left without consequences, and according to the governor's protests, the election results were canceled in three counties at once.

Two of the aforementioned complaints were filed by voters in the first election.

curiae in Kolomna district. One of them spoke of the illegal participation in the voting of the collegiate councilor N.A. Another complaint reported violations in the design of powers of attorney, which were written “... with the same hand, and in both, contrary to 21 Art. Regulations on zemstvo institutions, an indication to whom exactly the power of attorney was issued was made after the signature of the persons who issued these powers of attorney. " A decade earlier, the above circumstance could have served as a basis for canceling the elections, but this time the members of the presence, considering that the powers of attorney "fully meet" the requirements of the law, came to the conclusion that there were no violations that, "being significant, would require ... cancellation elections in their entirety ”.

Another complaint was filed by the provincial secretary P.I.Burkovsky following the election of the second curia in the Moscow district. In it, in particular, it was indicated that the candidates themselves were allowed to count the votes, while some of them noted the number of electoral balloons, others - non-selective balloons, “and it is remarkable that those who predominantly counted balloons were elected”. In the explanations of the Moscow mayor K. V. Rukavishnikov, presented on this complaint, it was indicated that members of the city council participated as counters, and they all counted only ballots, which was recorded on the labels with which the ballot boxes were sealed. On the basis of this information, the members of the provincial presence decided to consider the facts stated in the statement not confirmed, and leave the complaint without consequences. Following the results of the same elections, a protest was received from the

Bernator A.G. Bulygin, which indicated the illegal election of the collegiate assessor M.D. The presence had to resolve the incident: does a nobleman have the right to participate in the election of a non-noble curia? However, without going into such subtleties, the members of the presence revealed that the power of attorney received by Pfeifer was drawn up in violation of the law, and on this basis they decided to exclude him from the number of vowels.

Another protest by the governor followed in relation to the elections for the first curia in the Moscow district, where two incompetent voters, who received only one vote at the preliminary congress, were delegated to the main meeting and were elected to the public. The presence, seeing that the election at the preliminary congress was due to the preponderance of their own balls, considered it a violation of the law and decided to exclude both from the number of vowels. At the same time, the overall results of the elections were upheld, and since the number of those elected as vowels exceeded 2/3 of the norm established by law, the holding of by-elections was deemed unnecessary.

Similar situations with the illegal election of persons at the congress of delegates were repeated in the elections for the second curia in two more districts - Vereysk and Podolsk. And in both cases, the election results were canceled by the decision of the attendance on the grounds that some of the number of those running at the main election meeting received an advantage of only one or two balls, i.e., the participation of illegally elected representatives could really affect the voting results.

Another case of the cancellation of the voting results occurred in the Volokolamsk district, where 10 voters came to the elections for the first curia, and instead of, guided by the current legislation, declaring all those present enrolled in the vowels, they held a full vote, which, of course, was protested by the governor. and by decision of the presence, new elections were called.

On the whole, the 1894 campaign demonstrated, on the one hand, an increase in the number of violations of electoral legislation, and on the other, a strengthening of the positions of administrative supervision represented by the governor and the provincial presence on zemstvo and city affairs, which was clearly manifested in three episodes with the cancellation of the voting results.

Summing up the overall results of the election campaigns held in the Moscow province during the reign of Alexander III, we note that the most acute disagreements arose between the voters from among the nobility and the owners of commercial and industrial establishments. The new zemstvo law solved this problem by creating class curia

which testified to the toughening of the struggle among non-noble voters. The rejection of the all-class approach to the formation of electoral curia was undoubtedly a regression and contained a counter-reform principle. Moreover, in subsequent years, the process of reducing the number of voters in the first curia continued, and, on the contrary, the number of non-nobles and the profitability of their property increased rapidly, and this, in turn, led to absenteeism of the nobles and aggravated contradictions between voters of non-noble origin.

At the same time, the creation of a provincial presence for zemstvo and city affairs, which was interpreted in the writings of contemporaries as a way to strengthen supervision by the state over public self-government bodies, in practice made it possible to consistently suppress violations of the law, which means it can be considered as a certain progress and can be considered as “ correction of reforms ”.

In this regard, it is not possible to unequivocally assess the Zemstvo reform of 1890, in our opinion, since in the implementation of different directions it had different consequences, combining elements of both "counterreform" and "correction of reforms".

Literature

1. Biyushkina NI To the question of the concept of counterreforms in the 80-90s. XIX century. in Russia // Russian legal journal. - 2011. - No. 5. - S. 212-213.

2. Report of the Moscow district zemstvo council to the Moscow district zemstvo assembly in 1886, No. 15. - M., 1886.

3. Report of the Moscow district zemstvo council to the Moscow district zemstvo assembly in 1889: No. 10 // Journals of the Moscow district zemstvo assembly in 1889. - M., 1889.

4. Veselovsky BB The history of the zemstvo for forty years: In 4 volumes. St. Petersburg: Publishing house of ON Popova, 1909-1911.

5. Journals of the Moscow district zemstvo assembly in 1883. - M., 1884 .-- S. 20.

6. Journals of district zemstvo assemblies of the Moscow province in 1883: In 3 volumes - M., 1884.

7. Zayonchkovsky P. A. Russian autocracy at the end of the 19th century. - M .: Publishing house of Moscow University, 1970 .-- P. 434.

8. Zakharova L. G. Zemskaya counter-reform of 1890. - M .: Publishing house of Moscow University, 1968.

9. Kizevetter AA Local self-government in Russia 1X-Х1X st .: Historical sketch. - M .: Rus. Thought, 1910 .-- S. 151-152.

10. Korkunov NM Russian state law. - T. 2. A special part. - SPb: Book. magician. A.F. Tsinserlinga b. Melier and K °, 1893 .-- S. 266, 281.

11. Mysh MI Regulations on zemstvo institutions on June 12, 1890 with related legalizations, judicial and government explanations: T. 1. 5th ed. - SPb: type. A. Bencke, 1910.

12. Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions, imperially approved on January 1, 1864 // Complete collection of laws of the Russian Empire: Sobr. 2nd. T. 39. Dept. 1. - SPb: in Type. 2 Dept. Own e. and. v. Chancery. - 1867. - No. 40457.

13. Russian State Historical Archives. - F. 1341. The first department of the Governing Senate. - Op. 150 .-- D. 835 .-- L. 11.

14. Sveshnikov MI Foundations and limits of self-government: The experience of a critical analysis of the main issues of local self-government in the legislation of the most important European states. - SPb: type. V. Bezobrazova and Co. and Efron, 1892.

15. Khristoforov I. A. "The stumbling block": the problem of administrative reforms in the last quarter of the XIX - early XX centuries. // Administrative reforms in Russia: history and modernity / Under total. ed. R.N.Baiguzin. - M .: ROSSPEN, 2006 .-- S. 237.

16. Central Historical Archive of Moscow. - F. 17. Office of the Moscow Governor.

17. Central Historical Archive of Moscow. - F. 65. Moscow provincial presence on zemstvo and city affairs.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Ministry of Science and Education of the Russian Federation

Non-state educational institution of higher professional education

"Tomsk Institute of Economics and Law"

Faculty of Law

Department of General Education Disciplines

abstract

by discipline

"History of domestic state and law"

" Zemsky Reform of 1864 and Zemsky Counter-reform of 1890.

Ocomparative test"

Completed by: Radchenko I.V.

Tomsk 2014

Introduction

1. Preconditions of the Zemsky reform

2. The historical significance of the Zemsky reform

3. Counter-reforms of zemstvo institutions in the 90s of the XIX century.

Conclusion

Introduction

Zemskaya reform of 1864 - one of the bourgeois reforms that followed after the abolition of serfdom, created local government bodies - zemstvos. The use of new methods of management, the better use of their own property by the entire population led to an increase in the tax base and, naturally, zemstvo fees.

These are the main results of the population's independent and under their own responsibility in addressing local issues. Independent activity consisted in the fact that zemstvo institutions themselves earned funds to solve their own - local affairs. Such activities were not only independent, but also "under their own responsibility."

The purpose of this essay is to analyze the activities of zemstvo and local self-government in pre-revolutionary Russia. Based on the goal, the following tasks are determined:

1. To study the zemstvo self-government bodies, their functions, structure and competence;

2. Analyze the Zemstvo counter-reform.

1. Preconditions for the Zemsky reform

As for the state of local self-government in the pre-reform period, it is worth noting that it was built in full accordance with the system of serf economy.

The central figure in it remained the landowner, who concentrated in his hands the economic, administrative, judicial and political power over his peasants.

At the provincial level, the governor was the main person in the local government system. By the order of 1837, the governors were endowed with a wide range of powers: police, supervisory, administrative and economic, etc. The law assigned the governor the place of the immediate head of the province entrusted to him.

The next appointed place after the governor was occupied by the provincial leader of the nobility, who performed various police, investigative, guardian and other functions. The district marshal of the nobility headed the apparatus of district officials.

The personnel of the officials who were responsible for the management was below any criticism. In the historical review of the activities of the committee of ministers, there are many cases of complaints from the population against the governors, about the abuse of officials, about the slow and wrong course of affairs. In all the provinces there were heaps of papers with unresolved issues. The composition of the governors did not improve even during the reign of Alexander II.

The pre-reform uyezd and provincial economy and administration were in a completely disordered state in the 40-60s of the 19th century. Yields were low and showed no upward trend. Bread stores were almost everywhere empty, and food capital was plundered by landowners. Roads and bridges were in most cases unsuitable for driving. Frequent and devastating fires devastated the peasants and brought enormous losses to the wealthy elements. Shy formalities and bureaucratic red tape hindered the manifestation of private initiative, the establishment of trade and industrial enterprises, the opening of fairs and bazaars. Fair trade turnover was unsatisfactory. The hospitals were kept in such a way that the diseases in them intensified rather than cured. Epidemics raged. The mortality rate in some places exceeded the birth rate. Rural schools existed only on paper. There was practically no primary education.

The pre-reform system of local government reflected mainly the interests of the noble-landlord class. The principles of bureaucracy and centralism prevailing in its activities did not take into account the real needs of the local population, local industry and local trade. The picture was aggravated by the indivisibility of administrative, judicial and economic powers vested in the local administration.

The peasant reform removed the main obstacle standing in the way of capitalism — serfdom.

The need for the creation of local self-government bodies was ripe even before the abolition of serfdom. If it was preserved, the implementation of the Zemstvo reform was impossible. More than 20 million serfs, deprived of civil rights, could not take part in any public affairs, even those directly related to their life. All state, central and local institutions rested on the basis of serfdom and were imbued with the class, serfdom spirit. In the conditions in which the serf population of Russia lived, even limited self-government was unthinkable.

With the abolition of serfdom, the foundations of the old building of the tsarist administration were destroyed. A third of the population of Russia received certain civil rights, could more easily enter into bourgeois relations, and acquired a direct interest in local economic affairs. Naturally, she should have received at least some voice in these matters. The further existence of the estate institutions of local government lost all meaning.

Thus, only the abolition of serfdom ensured the possibility of carrying out the Zemstvo reform, and it also determined the urgent need for this reform.

The direct connection of the peasant reform with the reform of local government was also recognized in government circles. But it was still far from the consciousness of the need to transform local government to its implementation. The government was in no hurry to introduce zemstvo self-government, elected from all estates. At first, it was limited to the formation of peasant institutions. They were called upon in order to create the appearance of independent rural management, to increase the dependence of the peasants on the local administration and to ensure the proper execution of duties in favor of the landlords and the state. For this, village and volost assemblies were formed, at which were elected: the village headman, the tax collector, the volost board, the volost foreman and the volost court. The questions they dealt with were mainly related to serving all kinds of duties, arranging and collecting taxes. These were estates created by the government for a fiscal purpose. Peasant institutions, limited in their competence, were completely dependent on the local administration and the police.

The peasant reform required an urgent restructuring of the local government system.

The peasant reform proved to be an insufficient concession - it did not bring peace, but caused a new outburst of indignation among the people. Having deprived the peasants of the best part of their land holdings, leaving them, in essence, subordinate to the landowners, the peasant reform gave rise to a wave of popular uprisings. In the years 1859-1861, a situation developed in Russia, which many characterized as a revolutionary situation. Hence the need for new reforms, new concessions. The abolition of serfdom, being an important prerequisite for the creation of a zemstvo, could not automatically lead to the formation of zemstvo institutions. The main and decisive reason for this reform was the revolutionary movement in the country.

The question of local self-government emerged in the late 1950s. On March 27, 1859 under the Ministry of Internal Affairs it was created under the chairmanship of N.A. Milyutin's commission for the development of the law "On economic and administrative management in the county." It included educated and liberal-minded officials from the Ministries of Internal Affairs, Justice and State Property. The Commission was instructed that the projected local government bodies did not go beyond the economic issues of local importance. In April 1860, Milyutin presented to Alexander II the draft "Provisional Rules" prepared by the commission on local government, which was built on the principle of electiveness and lack of word. But in April 1861, under pressure from the reactionary court circles of Milyutin and the Minister of Internal Affairs S.S. Lansky, accused of "liberalism", was dismissed. The new Minister of Internal Affairs P.A. Valuev, who was also appointed chairman of the commission for preparing the reform of local government, was known for his conservative views and stood for the protection of the corporate rights of the nobility. However, he decided to go to the elimination of the basic principles of the zemstvo reform, which were based on the Milyutin commission - electivity and lack of estates, but only changed the system of elections to zemstvo institutions, which gave an advantage to the noble landowners and the big bourgeoisie and significantly limited the representation of the bulk of the population - the peasantry. , completely eliminated workers and artisans from participating in elections.

The rise of the social democratic movement in the country forced the autocracy to go even further than the tasks that it had set before the Milyutin commission. Valuev was instructed, in connection with the reform of the zemstvo institutions, to prepare a project for a "new institution of the State Council." According to this project, it was planned to establish a "congress of zemstvo vowels" from representatives of provincial zemstvos and cities at the State Council for preliminary discussion of some laws before submitting them for discussion to the State Council. Valuev presented the main principles of this reform to the Emperor in February 1862.The Emperor, in principle, approved them and submitted them for discussion to the noble meetings. But by this time the situation in the country had changed significantly. The revolutionary wave was knocked down, and the autocracy abandoned its intention to allow "representatives of the population to participate in the legislation," deciding to confine itself only to the establishment of local government bodies at the provincial and district levels. Along with this, it was also decided to abandon the projected lower zemstvo unit - the volost zemstvo.

By March 1863, the draft "Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions" had been prepared. After discussion in the State Council, it was approved on January 1, 1864 by Alexander II and received the force of law. zemstvo serf reform

The main provisions and features of the reform

0 On January 1, 1864, the "Statute on provincial and district zemstvo institutions" was adopted. Zemstvos were introduced only in the Great Russian provinces, in which the Russian nobility predominated. Of the 78 provinces of Russia, the "Provision" spread to 34 provinces. administration subordinated to the German barons), Lithuania, Poland, Belarus, Right-Bank Ukraine (in these regions, the Polish nobility predominated among the landowners), the Caucasus, Kazakhstan and Central Asia. But even in those 34 provinces to which the law on zemstvos extended, zemstvo institutions were not immediately introduced.

All places that were in charge until 1864 of affairs about zemstvo duties, public welfare, national food (apartment committees, road commissions, public food commissions, hospital councils) were abolished. All cases related to the local economy of provinces and counties were withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the noble self-government.

The system of zemstvo institutions included:

· Zemsky electoral congresses whose task was limited to the election of zemstvo vowels once every three years (i.e., elected members of city assemblies);

· Zemsky meetings;

· Zemsky councils.

1. Zemsky electoral congresses were the first element of the system of zemstvo institutions. The system of zemstvo representation was based on the principle of all-estate. Elections to zemstvo institutions were held at three electoral congresses - from three electoral curiae. The curiae were as follows:

§ curia of county landowners- consisted mainly of noble landowners. The right to vote at the congress of county landowners was obtained by the owners of land qualifications, real estate qualifications or a certain annual capital turnover. The land qualification was established separately for each province, depending on the state of landowners' land tenure. For example, in the Vladimir province it was 250 dessiatines, in the Vologda province - 250-800 dessiatines, in the Moscow province - 200 dessiatines. The price of real estate and the annual turnover of capital were set at 15 and 6 thousand, respectively. Uyezd landowners with a lower qualification took part in the elections through delegates;

§ urban curia- it was attended by persons with merchant certificates, owners of commercial and industrial establishments with a turnover of at least 6 thousand rubles a year and a certain amount of real estate;

§ rural curia- it did not establish a property qualification, but a system of three-stage elections was introduced: the peasants who gathered at the volost gathering appointed their electors and sent them to the meeting, which elected zemstvo vowels (to the uyezd zemstvo assembly).

§ The only one of the three congresses - the peasant one - was of a purely estate character, which made it impossible for persons who were not part of rural society, primarily the rural intelligentsia, to participate in it.

At the congresses of county landowners and city electoral congresses, they could choose vowels only from "their own", while rural electors were allowed to choose from themselves as vowels and landowners who did not participate in this curia, and local clergy. Persons under 25 were deprived of the right to vote; persons under criminal investigation or trial; defamed by court or public judgment; foreigners who have not sworn allegiance to Russia.

2. Zemsky meetings- the second element of the system of zemstvo institutions. Zemsky assemblies were formed at electoral congresses. The Zemsky Assembly was elected once every three years, it met regularly once a year, but if extraordinary circumstances arose, then more often. As a rule, the leader of the nobility became the chairman of the zemstvo assembly. The county zemstvo assemblies were in a certain dependence on the provincial ones and independently resolved the following issues:

· Distribution within the county of state and provincial fees, which was imposed by law or government decree on county institutions;

· Drawing up preliminary assumptions for provincial estimates on the amount and methods of execution in the district of duties classified as provincial, submitting the aforementioned assumptions to the provincial zemstvo assembly;

· Providing provincial zemstvo institutions with local information and opinions on the subjects of the economy;

· Permission to open trades and bazaars;

· Assignment of country and field roads to the category of county roads, as well as county roads to the category of country roads, changing the direction of county zemstvo roads;

· Local orders and supervision according to the instructions of the provincial government within the district on the arrangement of the provincial routes of communication, on the fulfillment of the needs of communication and mutual insurance; submission to the provincial zemstvo assembly of a report on the relevant actions.

The exclusive competence of provincial zemstvo institutions included:

· Division into county and provincial: zemstvo buildings, structures, communications, duties, institutions of public charity, as well as changes in this division;

· Cases of opening new fairs and postponing or changing the dates of existing ones;

· Cases on the opening of new marinas on navigable rivers and on the transfer of existing ones;

· Submission, through the head of the province, petitions to transfer, for good reasons, zemstvo road structures to the category of state ones;

· Cases on mutual zemstvo property insurance against fire;

· The distribution between the counties of the amounts of state fees imposed on the zemstvo institutions by law or by a special supreme authority approved by the government;

· Consideration and resolution of difficulties that may arise in the approval of estimates and layouts of county fees;

· Consideration of complaints against the actions of zemstvo councils.

The regulation of 1864 did not contain a clear definition of the functions of the zemstvos. Their main task was considered to streamline the implementation of zemstvo duties. Article 2 of the Regulations contained a list of occupations for zemstvos, in principle possible, but not always obligatory. These included:

· Management of property, capital and cash collections of the zemstvo, zemstvo charitable institutions;

· Care "for the development of foodstuffs", local trade and industry;

· Management of mutual land insurance of property;

· Participation in the care of public education and public health (in economic terms);

· The allocation of state monetary collections, the allocation of which is entrusted to the zemstvo;

· Collection and spending of local taxes.

3. Zemsky councils were the executive bodies of zemstvo institutions. Their personnel were elected at the first meeting of the new zemstvo assembly. Officials of local treasury chambers, county treasuries, and clergy were deprived of this right.

The provincial government consisted of 6 members and a chairman, was elected for three years. The candidacy of the chairman of the provincial council was approved by the Minister of Internal Affairs.

The county government consisted of a chairman and two members; the chairman was approved by the governor.

The responsibility of the administrations included the implementation of the orders of the zemstvo assemblies. In addition, their responsibilities included:

· Drawing up provincial estimates, layouts and reports;

· Preparation of information and conclusions necessary for the collection;

· Supervision over the receipt of zemstvo income and expenditure of zemstvo sums;

· Representation in court of the interests of the zemstvo in property matters;

· An order with the permission of the governor on the timely convocation and opening of zemstvo assemblies.

The responsibilities of the provincial councils also included the consideration of complaints against the county councils, as well as the formation of offices under them.

Glasnost was an important principle of the administrations' activity. The regulation of 1864 provided that all estimates, layouts, reports of administrations, as well as the results of audits, are printed for general information in the "Provincial Gazette". Until 1866, materials of meetings and administrations were published without prior censorship, with the exception of decrees that needed the approval of the governor.

In 1867, a law was passed prohibiting any intercourse between the zemstvos of different provinces, even for general administrative affairs. All print media were subject to the governor's censorship. It was established that the reports of the zemstvo administrations should be printed with the permission of the governor and in an amount not exceeding the number of vowels. Thus, the local population completely lost the ability to control the activities of zemstvo institutions. There were situations when the newly elected vowels in the meeting could not get acquainted with how their predecessors worked.

The government, fearing the influence of the zemstvo institutions, limited their competence to a narrow circle of purely economic matters, from which the zemstvos had no right to leave. By separating the economic area from the general administration, the government fragmented local government between various crown and zemstvo institutions, which had a detrimental effect on the entire course of local activities. Often the same area of ​​local affairs was administered by different authorities. Zemstvos could, for example, rent premises for a school and take over its maintenance, but according to the law, they did not have the right to direct education at this school, could not draw up programs, control the educational process, since this was considered a function of state bodies.

Despite these restrictions and such a reliable composition of zemstvo institutions, the government, having given them care for the local economy, deprived them of their independence even within the specified limits. Zemstvo institutions did not have their own executive bodies, did not have coercive power; they had to act only through the police. They were deprived of the right to communicate with each other, were placed under the strict guardianship and control of the governor and the minister of internal affairs, who could suspend any decision of the zemstvo assemblies.

But even in this truncated form, the zemstvos instilled fear in the autocracy. Therefore, the zemstvo reform was not introduced simultaneously and everywhere. The introduction of zemstvo institutions began in February 1865 and lasted for a long time. By the end of the 70s, zemstvos were introduced only in 35 provinces of the Russian Empire.

2 ... The historical significance of the Zemsky reform

The logical conclusion of the Zemstvo reform was to be the all-Russian body of people's representation. But that did not happen. Zemskaya reform did not form a harmonious and centralized system... There was no body leading and coordinating the work of all zemstvos. When in 1865 the St. Petersburg Provincial Zemstvo Assembly raised the question of forming such a body, it was simply closed by the government.

The reform also did not create the lowest level, which could close the system of zemstvo institutions - the volost zemstvo. Attempts by many zemstvo assemblies at their first sessions to raise this issue were nipped in the bud by the government. Not daring to make the zemstvos exclusively noble institutions, the government legislatively introduced representatives of this class into the leadership of the zemstvos: the leaders of the provincial and district nobility became the chairmen of the zemstvo assemblies. The lack of sufficient material resources (they were formed due to the imposition of a special tax on the local population; in 1866 it was forbidden to tax commercial and industrial enterprises) and their own executive apparatus increased the dependence of the zemstvos on government bodies.

Nevertheless, the zemstvos managed to make a significant contribution to the development of the local economy, industry, communications, health care and public education.

Without a doubt, the zemstvos played an outstanding role in raising the cultural level of the Russian countryside in spreading literacy among the peasants. By 1880, 12 thousand zemstvo schools were opened in the village, and over half a century of their activity, zemstvos opened 28 thousand schools. During this time, 2 million peasant children were educated in zemstvo schools. The zemstvos trained 45 thousand teachers at their own expense and significantly raised the material and social status of the people's teacher. Zemsky schools were considered the best. The schools of the Ministry of Public Education began to operate on their model.

The role of the zemstvo in the development of health care in European Russia is no less important. Medical institutions in the countryside, although still few in number and imperfect, were entirely created by zemstvos. Zemsky hospitals were open to all strata of the peasantry, which had previously been practically deprived of any medical assistance. At the expense of the zemstvos, paramedic courses were created specifically for the village. The selfless labor of doctors, who often refused profitable metropolitan practice in order to treat peasants in the provincial backwaters, is a topic for a special study. Zemsky doctors began to vaccinate against smallpox in the village. They have prevented the spread of a number of epidemic diseases. Thanks to the efforts of zemstvo doctors, the mortality rate among peasants decreased from 3.7 to 2.8% (per 100 people).

The organization of small land loans to assist rural communities in buying and leasing land has become widespread in zemstvos. Many zemstvos organized savings and loan associations, handicraft artels, issued food and cash benefits to starving peasants, petitioned to lower the redemption payments paid by peasants, to replace the poll tax with an all-estate income tax, and to promote the resettlement of peasants. But all these measures were not able to radically alleviate the situation in the countryside. A certain role here, of course, was played by the lack of zemstvo funds (the sources of receipt of which, as indicated above, were limited), but the main thing was not this. With rare exceptions, even the most liberal-minded zemstvo leaders were landowners who were disgusted by the very idea of ​​redistributing land.

I would especially like to say about the zemstvo statistics, thanks to which a detailed survey of the Russian countryside was carried out for the first time, covering 4.5 million peasant households. Zemsky statisticians applied the latest achievements statistical science, and their examinations were of great importance not only in applied. But also scientific value. Russian zemstvo statistics were considered the best in the world in terms of the wealth, accuracy and value of the information they collected.

The activities of zemstvo institutions in Russia were not limited only to cultural and economic issues. They strove to play a role in the political life of the country. By their nature, the new bodies of local all-class self-government inevitably gravitated towards central self-government, towards parliamentary forms of government. Therefore, within the framework of the zemstvo in Russia, a political trend, which was opposed to the autocracy, arose in the post-reform period, which received the name of the zemstvo liberal movement in historical literature. The American journalist George Kennan, who visited Russia several times, devoted a special essay to the Russian liberals, in which, in particular, he wrote: approved corporations, were called by the government as commissioners from the population. " Indeed, Russian liberals believed that after the ordering of local self-government and the entire state system, it would undergo a transformation and the government would call Zemstvo representatives to more important posts in the field of government activity.

Thus, the zemstvos, although limited in rights, showed their vitality, adaptability to local conditions and the requirements of life. Contrary to the legislative prohibitions, the zemstvo turned into centers of public activity for the liberal nobility. The emergence of the Zemstvo liberal opposition movement in the 70s-80s of the 19th century, which the government had to reckon with, became an important factor in the country's social and political life.

3. Counterreforms of zemstvo institutions in90s XIX century.

On March 2, 1881, Alexander III ascended the throne and soon (April 29, 1881) the new emperor signed a manifesto "On the inviolability of autocracy." This law is rightfully identified with the turn towards reaction or towards the so-called course of "counter-reforms" of 1880-1890. 2 Tsechoev V.K., Vlasov V.I., Stepanov O.V. History of domestic state and law. Study guide - Moscow - Rostov-on-Don, 2003

This period was marked by a series of reactionary reforms aimed at revising the existing system of bourgeois legislation.

The concept of counter-reform has a broad meaning and includes not only reactionary laws, but also the entire political course of the Russian autocracy. The objective reason for this turn was the imperfection of the reforms in the socio-economic and political spheres. The highest bodies of state power, the power of the monarch and the omnipotence of the bureaucracy remained outside the process of perestroika. In carrying out the reform, the desire to preserve the autocracy triumphed. And this was a threat to the reforms themselves. And, finally, the mechanism for implementing reforms was weak, while the feudal state was strong.

Alexander III strove to preserve the existing order, strengthen the position of the nobility, and prevent revolution. The internal policy of the emperor was of a conservative, protective nature, which, however, did not exclude the protection of the interests of Russian industrial and commercial capital.

The measures of the government of Alexander III consisted in revising many of the achievements of the previous course in such important areas of life as the zemstvo, city government, courts, education and the press.

The first measures of the government of Alexander III confirmed the determination of the authorities to firmly pursue the proclaimed "protective" course: on August 14, 1881, the "Regulation on Measures to Protect State Security and Public Peace" was adopted. Now in any province it was allowed to introduce a state of emergency "to establish calm and eradicate sedition." Any of its inhabitants could be arrested, exiled without trial for five years, or brought to a military court. But since the scale of emergency situations did not exist, lawlessness began in the provinces. The staff of a separate corps of gendarmes was increased, new security departments were created, and in 1882 - the secret police. The governors received the right to close the press, trade and industrial enterprises, educational institutions; to suspend the activities of zemstvos and city councils. Published as "temporary" for a period of three years, this "Regulation" was constantly renewed and was in effect until 1917.

Under the conditions of developing capitalism, Alexander III, expressing the interests of the most conservative circles of the nobility, preserved the landlord way of life. However, in the field of economic policy, the emperor was forced to reckon with the growth of capitalist elements in the country. Alexander III, shocked by the death of his father, tried in every way to limit the influence of revolutionary groups in the country.

The main directions of the new government's activity were "eradicating sedition" and appeasing the public. A special role in strengthening and protecting the regime was assigned to the Police Department, whose activities acquired an unprecedented scale after the appointment of V.K. Plehve, and then I.N. Drunov. In 1882, the political search in Russia was headed by Lieutenant Colonel of the Separate Corps of Gendarmes G.P. Sudeikin. This intelligent, enterprising and ambitious official has carefully studied the experience of the secret police of European countries. As an inspector of the secret police and head of the Petersburg security department, he created a well-thought-out system of political investigation in Russia based on provocative activities, espionage and blackmail.

In addition to the official police authorities in March 1881. a kind of secret public organization arose to protect the emperor and fight against revolutionary terror - the "Sacred Guard". It was created with the knowledge of Alexander III and united more than 700 representatives of the highest nobility, high-ranking bureaucracy, generals, etc. Among them were the Tsar's brothers, the minister of the court I.V. Vorontsov-Dashkov, Count P.A. Shuvalov, S.Yu. Witte. With the help of its own agents, as well as espionage and provocations, the "Druzhina" tried to disorganize the actions of revolutionary organizations from within. Soon, her active but non-professional activities began to interfere with the work of the Police Department. And by the end of 1881. Alexander III, realizing the danger of this "voluntary" punitive body, undermining the authority of the government and its monopoly on repression, ordered the "Sacred squad" to be disbanded.

The years of the reign of Alexander III brought forward the ideas of centralization and strengthening of the principle of autocracy on the political arena. “The Russian autocracy,” wrote M. N. Katkov, “cannot and should not tolerate any outgoing power in the country that is not subordinate to him or not from him, no state in the state ... to the central government zemstvo and local government ".

On June 12, 1890, a new Statute on Zemstvo Institutions was published, approved by Alexander III, which restored the class of electoral groups and, thanks to a change in the qualification, further strengthened the representation of the nobility. According to the new Regulation, the first electoral group included hereditary and personal nobles, the second - other voters and legal entities, in the third - the peasants. Provincial vowels, as before, were elected at district zemstvo meetings. In the provincial assembly since 1890. all county leaders of the nobility and heads of county zemstvo councils were necessarily included. Reform of 1890 gave the nobles absolute dominance.

So, the composition of the provincial vowels in 1897. by estates it was formed as follows: nobles and officials - 89.5%, commoners - 8.7%, peasants - 1.8%. But by increasing the number of noble vowels, the new Regulation at the same time reduced the total number of vowels by more than 30%. The reduction of vowels was carried out in this way: from each county, the number of vowels was reduced by one, and each county had to have at least two provincial vowels.

The new Zemstvo Regulations actually denied any connection with the idea of ​​local self-government. According to the Regulations of 1890, electoral rights were deprived of: the clergy, church parables, peasant associations, peasants who owned private land in the district, persons who had merchant certificates, owners of commercial and industrial establishments, as well as Jews. Rural electoral congresses were abolished, vowels were appointed by the governor from among the candidates elected by the volost gatherings. The principle of elective councils was essentially abolished, the procedure for approval was introduced not only for the chairman of the council, but also for all its members, and the zemstvo assemblies were deprived of the right to appeal against non-approval. The chairmen and members of the boards were numbered public service, persons who did not have the right to civil service could not be elected to the chairmen of boards. The latter circumstance especially affected the outskirts, where the chairmen of the councils were, as a rule, peasants or merchants. Art. 87 of the Regulations gave the governor the right to stop the execution of assembly resolutions not only in cases of formal violations of the law, but also when he finds that this resolution “does not correspond to general state benefits and needs or clearly violates the interests of the local population” (the principle of expediency).

Of the positive acquisitions introduced by the 1890 Regulations, it should be noted: a) the expansion of the circle of persons subject to election to chairmen and members of councils (they could be not only vowels, but also persons with an electoral qualification); b) a slight increase in the competence of zemstvos, the list of subjects on which zemstvos could issue binding resolutions (Article 108); c) the restoration of almost the full extent of the rights of the zemstvos to the free mailing of correspondence. Restrictive measures aimed at reducing the independence of the zemstvo bodies include the deprivation of uyezd assemblies of the right to direct, in addition to the provincial zemstvo, petitions to the government. The previous procedure for filing applications was restored only by the law of February 2, 1904.

The fate of the zemstvo institutions in 1892 befell the city government. City Regulations 1892 significantly reduced the electoral right for city dwellers, which led to a decrease in the number of voters by 6-8 times (up to 0.5-2% of the total urban population). The number of vowels was also reduced (by about 2 times). There have also been changes in the internal structure of the city government. The board was placed in a position more independent from the duma, the rights of the mayor as chairman of the duma were significantly expanded at the expense of the rights of vowels, the duma was deprived of the right to be brought to justice by members of the council. At the same time, the new City Statute equated elected city officials with government officials and made them subject to disciplinary dependence on the administration.

The mayors and members of the council were considered to be in the public service, and the governor was given the right to issue orders and instructions to them, and the provincial presence on city affairs could remove them from office, while the Duma was deprived of this right. "Is there anything more abnormal than this state of affairs!" - K.A. exclaimed sadly about this. Pajitnov. “We can say that after the reform of 1892 we have no self-government left in the generally accepted sense of the word ...” 5 The reform of 1890-1892 threw the structure of local government in Russia far back. the order that existed in the cities of Western Europe, the laws of 1890-1892 introduced such a restriction of the electoral right and such interference from the administration, which no civilized state knew at that time. The official "Moscow Departments" of those years wrote: "The zemstvo is only needed by our constitutionalists, who cherish the dream of growing a large and branched tree from this stunted plant, and the local" improvement will only benefit from removing it from the tenacious hands of zemstvo dealers. "

However, it must be admitted that by the end of the 70s of the XIX century. the crisis of zemstvo institutions began. Deprived of initiative, strangled by the arbitrariness of the administration, the zemstvos worked as if by inertia. Many of the vowels so lost interest in their public duties, moreover, rather burdensome, that they stopped attending the meetings of the zemstvo assemblies. The execution of zemstvo affairs in the boards, in the absence of proper control from the vowels, took an increasingly formal framework that was not related to the solution of the real needs of the population. Zemstvos quickly turned into yet another "commanding" superstructure, which existed at the expense of additional extortions from the population.

By the end of the XIX century. the anxieties of the "troubled" 60-80s were forgotten, the formal zemstvo demonstrated "loyalty", a peasant world led by zemstvo district chiefs, who replaced in 1889. the inconsistency of village self-government, was freed from the "hardships" of democracy that did not take root. The state mechanism worked like a clock. At least so it seemed to the royal court and the government wanted it. Moreover, the source of "troubles and upheavals" - the local society was brought to naught thanks to the efforts of the administration of Alexander III. In such conditions, it was hardly fruitful to think about the reform of the zemstvo and city self-government, the expansion of its rights and democratization. Zemstvo and city self-government bodies have been oppressed since the time of their formation. Attacks on the zemstvos became especially frequent with the onset of reaction in the 1880s. Self-government, for all its limitations, acted on the government bureaucracy like a red rag on a bull. And on June 12, 1890. a new Regulation on provincial and district zemstvo institutions came into force, which meant zemstvo counter-reform.

First of all, the electoral system has undergone changes. Three curiae remained, but their composition and ratio changed. The axis reduced the total number of vowels. The first curia became purely noble, while the qualification for the nobles was lowered, and more than half of the seats were assigned to the nobles. According to the second curia, representatives of all estates could take part in the elections, except for the nobility and the clergy, but the qualification here was, on the contrary, increased. The clergy were excluded from participation in the elections. Finally, the peasants were deprived of their elective representation; they elected only candidates for zemstvo vowels. Then these candidates were considered by the congress of district zemstvo chiefs and, in the absence of objections, were approved by the governor. These changes also meant an open return to class.

Indeed, a lot has changed under the 1890 law. In 1864, the State Council did not single out the nobles in any way: all the owners of the county and city owners (noblemen and non-noblemen) chose vowels together. 25 years later, the State Council proceeded from the opposite principle - improving the composition of the zemstvo institutions by strengthening the position of the nobles as the most "trustworthy" category of residents. “For the peasants, it was stated in a note to the new zemstvo regulation (1890), zemstvo service would be associated with the greatest hardships. Therefore, when establishing the numerical distribution of these two estate groups in the composition of the district zemstvo assemblies, it would seem correct to accept, in the form of a general principle, that the number of vowels from the nobility should, if possible, exceed the number of vowels from rural societies twice. "

S.Yu. Witte believed that "Alexander III insisted on this idea (strengthening the role of the nobility - ON) ... precisely because he was seduced by the thought that all of Russia would be divided into zemstvo plots, that in each plot there would be a respectable nobleman, who is generally respected in the area that this respectable noble landowner will take care of the peasants, judge them and dress them. "

The dominance of the nobles was ensured as follows. All electors ("voters") of the county, according to the law, were divided into three categories:

1. peasants;

2. nobles, regardless of the place of ownership of property - in the village or city;

3. all other rural and urban estates.

The total number of county vowels was greatly reduced - from 13329 to 10229, while the nobles were given more than half of the seats, and only 3167 were left for the peasants (instead of the previous 5375). The census in most counties was lowered, and priests, owners of commercial establishments and persons with merchant certificates were excluded from the number of voters.

The right to participate in the elections was now given either by land or real estate in the county or city in the amount of at least 15,000 rubles. Many small owners were deprived of participation in zemstvo affairs: from now on, only the owners of 1/10 of the qualification (and not 1/20, as before) had the right to elect delegates at preliminary congresses. The peasants chose one candidate for the vowel from the volost. Later, the governor appointed the required number of vowels from among these candidates (this procedure existed until 1906, when the functions of the governor were transferred to special congresses).

Before the start of the elections in the county towns, “electoral lists” were drawn up in advance, which were then printed with corrections in the “Provincial Gazette”. On the days appointed by the governor, volost gatherings were held, as well as congresses of small owners and representatives of other estates. The vowels retained their powers for three years.

Soon after the elections (as a rule, at the beginning of September), a district zemstvo assembly was convened. The vowels were sworn in; at the end of the work, vowels were selected for the provincial zemstvo assembly.

Since the beginning of the XX century. provincial vowels elected one member of the State Council, and subsequently received the right to nominate candidates for The State Duma... Thus, representatives of the zemstvos ended up in both chambers of the Russian parliament: the State Council and the State Duma.

Thus, the task of the counter-reform was to transform the zemstvo institutions into a variety of executive bodies under the governor's power. This change in status entailed the transformation of zemstvo officials into civil servants: they were awarded class ranks, and state pensions were paid. Was retained and strengthened a special body of administrative supervision of local institutions - the provincial presence on zemstvo affairs. The latter was subordinate to a special council of the Ministry of the Interior.

Summing up, I would like to note the following:

First, local self-government continued to function in a "truncated form". That is why, we can only talk about the initial stage of the formation of the system of bodies of the so-called local "self-government". Zemsky institutions operated only in counties and provinces. They were absent at the grassroots level of government. The zemstvos were never "crowned" by the supreme body, which at least to some extent united and coordinated their activities.

Secondly, there were severe restrictions in the system of elections of local authorities. Elections were legalized that favored large landowners and wealthy citizens.

Thirdly, local government came under severe pressure from government agencies, and many issues could not be resolved without the coordination of the police and other institutions of the crown government.

Fourth, despite a sharp decrease in the number of zemstvo and city institutions, a significant restriction of their rights, counter-reforms did not achieve their final goals. Zemstvo self-government was never included in the circle of state legal provisions.

Fifth, in Russia the struggle of the all-powerful state bureaucracy with rather weak, curtailed local administration continued. First of all, the conflict between them outside the authorities intensified on the basis of arbitrary interpretation of local and non-local benefits and needs.

Counterreforms contributed to a new impulse of the zemstvo movement - the liberal opposition movement, which was based on the demands for expanding the rights of zemstvos and the spread of zemstvo principles of government to higher state institutions.

Thus, counter-reforms of the 80-90s XIX cc. in general, and the counter-reforms of the zemstvo policy in particular turned out to be a strong obstacle that emerged in the 60-70s. XIX v. modernization of the state system of Russia.

Conclusion

All the measures carried out in opposition to the previous reforms had one common pronounced feature. The state, built on the principle of a pyramid, the top of which is the imperial throne, tried not to leave anything out of its control. Hence the constant desire of the authorities everywhere to have an official who supervises and supervises everything - be it a governor, a zemstvo chief, a censor or a trustee of an educational district.

One should not think that the tightening of control on the part of the state was a consequence of the ill intentions of people concerned only with keeping power in their hands. On the contrary, the idea of ​​strong state power as the only condition for the self-preservation of society came from figures who sincerely cared about the peace and well-being of Russia.

The government of Alexander III believed that the reform should only follow life, and not change it. The adherents of the protective course believed that Russia was not yet ready for the transformations that Alexander II carried out. Therefore, the 80s - the beginning of the 90s. XIX century. They were remembered by contemporaries as a time of waiting, calm, "painful calm." "Painful" because Russia demanded the continuation of reforms.

The counter-reforms carried out in the "vital interests of the people" turned out to be powerless before the very course of life: it took its toll. The Zemstvo counter-reform did not stop the Zemstvo movement, but turned a significant part of the Zemstvo people against the autocracy. The increased electoral qualification for the city reform has become another incentive for business people to think about raising their income levels. This, in turn, contributed to the development of the urban economy, the strengthening of the urban bourgeoisie, which requires the autocracy to grant it more and more rights.

Counterreforms in education have also produced the exact opposite of what was expected: the spirit of free-thinking increased in universities. The government's measures in the field of printing were also unsuccessful: the number of publications in Russia increased from year to year. The number of those wishing to insert their little article somewhere grew - you cannot keep track of everything, no matter how much the supporters of the Russian statehood dreamed about it.

The real results of counterreforms made themselves felt in full by the most severe social upheavals at the beginning of the 20th century. Life, contrary to the rules dictated to it, continued, forcing everyone to make their own unique choice. It is worth listening to the silence of this era, if only because it was in the last decades of the 19th century that people grew up and were brought up who, in the near future, became the rulers of the destinies of Russia.

Sources and Literature

1. Ananich B. Problems of Russian reforming // Knowledge is power. - 1992. - No. 2.

2. Abramov V.F. Organization of zemstvo institutions and their bodies // Science in Russia. - 1996. - No. 6.

3. Ananich B., Chernukha V. Ink changes // Homeland. - 1991. - No. 11-12.

4. Gilchenko L.V. From the history of the formation of local self-government in Russia - 1996. - №5.

5. Efremova N.N. N.V. Nemytina Local government and justice in

Russia (1864-1917) // State and Law. - 1994. -No. 3.

6. Isaev I.A. History of State and Law of Russia-M .: Jurist, 2008.

7. Kuznetsov I.N. History of the state and law of Russia: Complete course lectures. - M.: Amalfeya, 1999.

8. Petrov F.A. Zemsko-liberal projects of reorganization of state institutions in Russia in the late 70's-n.80-ies of the XIX century. // Domestic history.-1993.-№4.

9. Rogov V.A. History of State and Law of Russia XIX-n. XX century - M.: Mirror: TEIS, 1995.

10. Starkov O.V., Bashkatov L.D. The place and role of zemstvo institutions in the system of state power in Russia in pp. XIX-early XX century // History of State and Law. 2001.

Posted on Allbest.ru

...

Similar documents

Preconditions for the Zemsky Reform. The state of local economy and management in the 40-60s of the XIX century. The significance of the revolutionary situation and the abolition of serfdom for the implementation of the Zemsky reform. Zemskaya reform of 1864. Basic provisions.

term paper, added 04/02/2005


The abolition of serfdom as a prerequisite for the Zemsky reform of 1864. Contents of the Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions. Conditions for the formation of all-estate self-government. Principles of establishing zemstvo fees and duties.

abstract, added 11/12/2010


The main reasons and prerequisites for the Zemsky reform of 1864 in Russia, the state of local economy and government in the state, the role of the revolutionary situation in its implementation. Analysis of the content of the reform and assessment of its historical significance.

abstract, added 07/27/2009


Preconditions for reforms. The consequences of the abolition of serfdom. Zemskaya reform of 1864. Judicial reform of 1864. Military reform of 1864-1874. Counter-reforms of the 80-90s of the XIX century. Development of the mining and metallurgical industry.

test, added 12/04/2016


Local government in the pre-reform period. The direct connection of the peasant reform with the reform of local government. Urban reform of 1864: the process of preparation and adoption, basic provisions, significance for the reformation of Russian society.

test, added 02/12/2014


The reasons for the Zemstvo reform of 1864. Drawing up the "Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions", especially the implementation of its individual points. The history of local self-government in Russia. Government control of zemstvo institutions.

term paper, added 01/31/2014


The history of the emergence of zemstvo self-government. Preconditions for the Zemsky Reform of 1864. Place, role and functions of zemstvo self-government in the system of public administration in Russia. Key provisions, economic and social consequences of the reform.

term paper, added 10/21/2011


Features of the period of reforms 1856-1881. Zemskaya reform, change of local government. "Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions". The basis of the Zemstvo reform is the principles of non-estates and electivity. disadvantages new system self-government.

term paper, added 11/15/2009


The history of the emergence of zemstvo self-government in Russia. Preconditions for the Zemsky Reform of 1864. The interests of the noble-landowner class. Economic and social consequences of the reform. Formation of all-estate self-government and its historical significance.

term paper, added 01/28/2014


Preconditions of the 1864 zemstvo reform and the process of formation of the zemstvo administration, the scope of its activities and the mechanism of functioning. The role of zemstvos in public education and health care. Zemskaya statistics and self-financing of local self-government.

Counter-reforms of Alexander III (briefly)

Counter-reforms of Alexander III (briefly)

After the assassination of Emperor Alexander II, power passes to his son Alexander III. Historians call the period of his reign "counter-reforms". This is due to the fact that at this time many of the transformations of the former rulers were revised. The counter-reforms themselves were a response to the anti-government activities of the intelligentsia. The tsar's closest circle included such reactionaries as: publicist M.K. Katkov, D.A. Tolstoy (Minister of Internal Affairs), as well as not unknown K.P. Pobedonostsev - Chief Prosecutor of the Synod. Along with this, Alexander III managed to conduct a rather cautious foreign policy. During his reign, the state did not enter into major military conflicts. For this, the people called the emperor "the Peacemaker". Here are the main measures of the reactionary direction:

· Zemskaya counter-reform. Since 1889, the so-called zemstvo chiefs were introduced in Russia, appointed by the Minister of Internal Affairs from among noble candidates who exercised police and administrative control over the peasants. This power practically restored the rights of the landowners, which they had lost due to the reform of 1861.

· City counter-reform. Since 1892, the number of voters has been reduced due to an increase in the property qualification, and all decisions of the Duma were approved by the provincial authorities. The number of Duma sessions was also limited. City administration was thus carried out by the government.

· Judicial counter-reform. Since 1887, the educational and property qualifications for jurors have been raised. This was able to increase the number of nobles in court. Transparency and publicity were limited, and political cases were removed from judicial jurisdiction.

· Counterreforms of the press and education. Control over educational institutions was significantly tightened. The university charter of 1884 abolished all university autonomy. The professors and the rector himself were appointed by the government, and the tuition fee was doubled. In addition, a special inspectorate was formed to supervise the students.

In 1887, a "circular on the cook's children" was adopted, prohibiting the admission of children who do not belong to the nobility. At the same time, it was openly stated that it was forbidden to admit children of shopkeepers, laundresses, lackeys, coachmen, etc. to the gymnasium.

Censorship is getting tougher. A number of liberal and all radical publications are being closed.

Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation

Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution

higher professional education

"KEMEROVSK STATE UNIVERSITY"

« Department of Taxation, Entrepreneurship and Law "

Topic: "Zemsky counter-reforms of Alexander III"

Completed by: Valeeva V.A.

Checked by: Knyazeva Yu.A.

Kemerovo 2011

Counterreforms in Russia are a series of events carried out by Emperor Alexander III in 1889-1894. with the aim of strengthening the autocracy by revising the moderate-bourgeois reforms of the 60-70s.

The main place in the system of counterreforms was occupied by the "Regulations on the zemstvo chiefs" of 1889, which was supposed to return to the landowners the patrimonial power weakened as a result of the peasant reform. In the hands of the zemstvo chiefs, all the fullness of the judicial and administrative power in the district was concentrated.

Peasant self-government was completely subordinated to them. Justices of the peace in the counties were abolished and the jurisdiction of their cases passed to the zemstvo chiefs (partly to the volost courts).

The zemstvo chief also had broad rights in relation to the volost courts; he appointed volost judges from among the candidates presented to him by village assemblies, and could suspend the verdict of the volost court.

Taking advantage of these rights, the zemstvo chiefs committed arbitrariness in relation to the peasants.

One of the important acts in the cycle of counterreforms is the new provision on provincial and district zemstvo institutions of June 12, 1890. It was intended to undermine the democratic foundations of the zemstvo reform of 1864, i.e. all-estates and electivity, and, as S.Yu. Witte, to "endorse" the Zemstvo. It was only in this way that tsarism hoped to tame the Zemstvo or, at least, to suppress its "liberalism". Meanwhile, the governors from everywhere complained to the tsar about the "harmful direction of the zemstvo", which they saw in the fact that zemstvo institutions "initiate and subject matters to discussion that are not within their competence," that is, mainly protect Russians from abuse of power by the tsarist administration. On a similar complaint from the Vyatka governor in 1886, Alexander III noted: "Almost everywhere the same." The tsar was especially irritated by the facts of "systematic bickering" of zemstvo institutions "with almost all government institutions: with the governor, with the police, with judicial investigators and the Ministry of Justice, with the clergy, with the inspection of public schools and with the educational district" he learned from the governor's reports. This is how Novgorod Governor A.N. Mosolov. Alexander III threateningly asked on the margins of his report: "What measures have been taken by the government against this outrage?"

Under the new regulation, the election of peasant representatives to the zemstvo was abolished. From now on, the peasants could elect only candidates, and from them the administration of the province (as a rule, the same zemstvo chiefs) appointed vowels, i.e. zemstvo deputies. Further, the non-estate electoral curia of landowners was liquidated, and a curia of nobles was established in its place. As a result, by 1903 the proportion of noblemen in / 321 / provincial councils of the zemstvo reached 94.1%, in county councils - 71.9%. Finally, the functions of the zemstvo were even more limited. If earlier the governor could cancel the zemstvo decrees only because of their "illegality", now also because of their "inexpediency", from his, the governor's point of view.

All these measures tied the hands of local government so that it now seemed more decorative than business. However, over time it became clear that the irreversible process of bourgeoisisation of the nobility frustrated the plans of tsarism to reactionize the zemstvo by means of its nobility. Among the Zemstvo nobles, contrary to the hopes of the reactionaries, liberals, rather than guardians, also prevailed. One can agree with P.A. Zayonchkovsky that "the Zemstvo counter-reform, despite the strengthening of government tutelage and the increase in the number of the nobility, did not change the oppositional essence of the Zemstvo bodies," although it made their activities very difficult. This fact is indicative: in just one year, from November 1891 to November 1892, the provincial presences on zemstvo affairs canceled 116 decisions of provincial and district zemstvo assemblies in 11 provinces.

Following the zemstvo, the city counter-reform was carried out in the same spirit. On June 11, 1892, Alexander III approved a new city regulation instead of the city reform of 1870, which he regarded as "absurdity." Now not only workers were deprived of voting rights, as in 1870, but in general all townspeople without immovable property: tenants, clerks, small merchants. The political competence of the middle bourgeoisie has sharply diminished. For example, in Kiev, out of 7 thousand homeowners, 5 thousand were deprived of voting rights. All in all, in 132 cities with a population of 9.5 million people, only 100 thousand citizens (1.05%) retained their electoral rights under the law of 1892. From now on, the city administration was dominated not by the commercial and industrial circles, as before, but by the owners of real estate, i.e. first of all, large homeowners, which were mostly all the same nobles and officials.

Nevertheless, the city administration, like the zemstvo administration, was placed under even stricter control of the administration than before. If the city regulation of 1870 entrusted the governor with the supervision of "the correctness and legality of the actions" of city bodies, then according to the law of 1892 the governor could direct "these actions according to the state benefit." Minister of Internal Affairs I.N. Durnovo stated with satisfaction that the new city position had been coordinated "with the zemstvo in its new system."

However, the city counter-reform was not entirely successful for tsarism. “By depriving representatives of the petty bourgeoisie (local merchants, clerks) from the voting rights, the law of 1892 strengthened in / 322 / city councils the role of owners of real estate, as well as representatives of institutions that owned real estate in cities,” concluded P.A. Zayonchkovsky. - Thus, the percentage of people with secondary and higher education has increased in city councils, and therefore in councils. This, naturally, also increased the percentage of opposition elements, i.e. representatives of the liberal intelligentsia ”.